[env-trinity] Mercury: Reality check: Prop. 53 ad exaggerates disaster relief risk

[Tom Stokely]

Reality check: Prop. 53 ad exaggerates disaster relief risk
Reality check: Prop. 53 ad exaggerates disaster relief risk

  
|  
|   
|   
|   |    |

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Reality check: Prop. 53 ad exaggerates disaster relief risk
   WHAT’S THE AD ABOUT? It targets Proposition 53, which would require statewide voter approval for state project...  |   |

  |

  |

 
By PAUL ROGERS | progers at bayareanewsgroup.comPUBLISHED: November 1, 2016 at 5:34 pm | UPDATED: November 1, 2016 at 7:56 pmWHAT’S THE AD ABOUT? It targets Proposition 53, which would require statewide voter approval for state projects funded by more than $2 billion in revenue bonds. If approved, the measure would likely require Gov. Jerry Brown’s top public works proposals — high-speed rail and the Delta tunnels — to go before voters, who could kill the projects.WHO’S FUNDING THE AD? The No on 53 campaign’s largest donor is Gov. Jerry Brown, who in recent weeks has contributed $4.1 million left over from his 2014 re-election campaign. Other large donors to the no campaign, which has so far raised $18.8 million, are the California Democratic Party, numerous Indian tribes and unions representing carpenters, laborers, electrical workers and others who stand to benefit from the large projects.The Yes on 53 campaign, which has not run TV ads, is entirely funded by Stockton farmer Dean Cortopassi and his wife, Joan, who have given $5 million. Cortopassi is an opponent of the Delta tunnels project and a longtime critic of state government debt levels.WHAT DOES THE AD SAY?  The ad features Alameda firefighter Juan Medrano saying “Prop. 53 takes away local control, allowing voters in the Central Valley or LA to veto local projects we need, like fixing bridges and road safety.” As a computer-generated image of downtown San Francisco in flames is shown, Medrano adds: “Prop. 53 has no exemptions for emergencies or natural disasters. So when the Big One hits, critical road and hospital repairs could be delayed years.”IS IT TRUE? The ad is misleading. After natural disasters such as earthquakes, federal agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Highway Administration — not state revenue bonds — provide most funding for recovery. Opponents concede that point, but they argue that in a future disaster Proposition 53 might limit local officials’ flexibility to provide government assistance.
Related Articles
   
   - Reality Check: Ad against Prop. 56 claiming it ‘cheats’ schools is deceptive 
   - Reality check: Will Proposition 61 hurt veterans? 
Under California law, voter approval already is required for one type of government financing: general obligation bonds. Those are IOUs that state government issues to raise money to build schools, roads, parks and other amenities. Investors who buy those bonds are repaid with interest over time, and the money to do that comes from the state general fund. By comparison, fees like bridge tolls and monthly water bills go to pay back revenue bonds.And what of the ad’s claim that Proposition 53 will allow people in other parts of the state to veto local projects? That’s unlikely. The measure’s text says it applies to “any single project financed, owned, operated or managed by the state.” And the text clearly states that it does not apply to “a city, county, city and county, school district, community college district or special district.”  The measure does affect projects built by partnerships between state and local governments, called “joint powers agencies.” But few of those partnerships build projects costing more than $2 billion in revenue bonds. The nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office cited only the high-speed rail project and Delta tunnels project as current proposals that would be affected if Proposition 53 passes. It said, however, that court challenges could occur in the future over what constitutes a project, such as whether a complex of state medical buildings funded by more than $2 billion in revenue bonds, as opposed to one hospital, would require a public vote. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20161103/5c73a53a/attachment.html>